He is ALIVE in us via the holy spirit. "It's Christ in you, the Hope of Glory". Do you remember that teaching? I do. I'd say that qualifies as fellowship but you can believe what you want!
A lot of wayfers talk this way. I don't know how to describe it.
It's generally referred to as "changing the subject".
Once again, may I point out that this discussion is not about the concept of dispensationalism?
Yes, it factors into it, but, any further discussion of it would best be handled in a separate thread.
So you think this is changing the subject? Did you read Dr. Juedes article in its entirety? I did. Dr. Juedes opened the door by inferring that core twi doctrine (which includes the seven administrations and body soul and spirit) is FALSE BECAUSE OF IMMORAL BEHAVIOR. That is pertinent to this thread of which the article is based.
Had he simply stated that twi doctrine was used to excuse immoral behavior, without speaking about the truth or error of the doctrine itself, I would have agreed with that opinion. BUT that is not enough, he wants to show that because of the immoral behavior, the doctrine must be wrong too. Sorry, I don't buy it.
As pointed out above, somebody can teach the doctrine and extract an exact opposite meaning, which I think means that the core doctrine (like seven administrations, body/soul/spirit) is IRRELEVANT when it comes to immoral behavior!
I disagree in part with this premise. It purports to infer that if immorality is present, the theology is false.
It doesn't infer that if immorality is present, the theology is false. What it says is if immorality is practiced in light of clear scriptures regarding the immorality, the theology that allows the practice is false.
This is ridiculous. It purports to infer that those who believe Christ is absent or dead cannot have a practical relationship with God. So what about Jews, Hindus, Muslims?
Just a grammatical point here, folks: an inference is something drawn from a statement. An implication is something given. In other words, Dr. Juedes might have implied something by his statement, or you might have inferred something from what he said. You give an implication; you take an inference.
As pointed out above, somebody can teach the doctrine and extract an exact opposite meaning, which I think means that the core doctrine (like seven administrations, body/soul/spirit) is IRRELEVANT when it comes to immoral behavior!
So you think this is changing the subject? Did you read Dr. Juedes article in its entirety? I did. Dr. Juedes opened the door by inferring that core twi doctrine (which includes the seven administrations and body soul and spirit) is FALSE BECAUSE OF IMMORAL BEHAVIOR. That is pertinent to this thread of which the article is based.
Had he simply stated that twi doctrine was used to excuse immoral behavior, without speaking about the truth or error of the doctrine itself, I would have agreed with that opinion. BUT that is not enough, he wants to show that because of the immoral behavior, the doctrine must be wrong too. Sorry, I don't buy it.
As pointed out above, somebody can teach the doctrine and extract an exact opposite meaning, which I think means that the core doctrine (like seven administrations, body/soul/spirit) is IRRELEVANT when it comes to immoral behavior!
You're putting the cart in front of the horse.
If a basic tenet of a belief system facilitates immoral behavior, it stands to reason the tenet, hence, the belief system (theology) must be flawed in some manner. Unless, of course, your belief system fails to acknowledge the behavior as being immoral, despite the societal mores of the system in which it resides.
In this instance, one of those specific flaws is the usage of dispensational theology to excuse immoral behavior and dismiss the perpetrator from accountability. Wierwille proposed that, because this is the "Grace Administration", as defined by dispensational theology, it follows that the most basic of laws, the ten commamdments, does not apply to this day and time. Based on his logic, murder or bank robbery would be acceptable as long as you are "spiritually mature" enough to justify and rationalize it.
If you disagree that the validity of dispensationalism should be questioned and discounted, that's your choice. Feel free to explore that avenue in the doctrinal forum. This discussion is not about the concept of "seven administrations" but rather, about how Wierwille applied that concept to exonerate deviant behavior. It's what the rest of the world (the secular faction) calls "rationalization".
The theology of twi oftentimes justified the immoral behavior.
...Was all of twi's theology wrong?...Absolutely! Why?...Because twi theology led people away from God and replaced God with men. Christianity is not an academic exercise...it's supposed to be about a practical relationship with God. Wierwille's theology was the antithesis to this...afterall, Christ was absent. Wierwille's sinful lifestyle was merely the bad fruit that came from a bad tree.
This is ridiculous. It purports to infer that those who believe Christ is absent or dead cannot have a practical relationship with God. So what about Jews, Hindus, Muslims?
What is more, TWI taught that Christ is alive and resurrected and seated at God's right hand, is our Lord and Savior, makes intercession for us, has fellowship with us, etc. Cherry picking one statement by VP out of its context is fraudulent and misleading.
As I said, Wierwille led people away from Christ and to himself. The book of Timothy sets forth the criteria for Christian ministers and Wierwille falls "WAY" short of even getting close to the standards that are set. It is quite clear from the bible that you cannot get good fruit from a bad tree...in spite of what you claim. His theology was hopelessly flawed and his behavior was deplorable...You use the word "fraudulent"...you mean as in the methods that Wierwille used when he plagiarized and claimed to hear God's voice?
As I said, Wierwille led people away from Christ and to himself. The book of Timothy sets forth the criteria for Christian ministers and Wierwille falls "WAY" short of even getting close to the standards that are set. It is quite clear from the bible that you cannot get good fruit from a bad tree...in spite of what you claim. His theology was hopelessly flawed and his behavior was deplorable...You use the word "fraudulent"...you mean as in the methods that Wierwille used when he plagiarized and claimed to hear God's voice?
Oddly enough, VP does fit the criteria set forth in the scriptures of a false teacher. He doesn't fall too short there.
I get what you are saying, but that is not what Dr. Juedes said. He wrote "the fact that core Way teachings can so easily be used to promote immorality is a good indication that those Way teachings are false, too." He is saying that because someone uses, for example, the seven administrations to excuse adultery, that the seven administrations teaching is false.
Oldies, although I am no longer dispensational in my beliefs, I have to agree that the belief is not directly responsible for the immoral teachings, no more than Calvin's views on grace and salvation are responsible. VPW's interpretation of those 3 beliefs are where the problems lie.
Johnj, I can't blame dispensationalism as much as VPW's take on grace and salvation. There was a sense of you can't ever earn salvation, so why try. It's not so much the "grace administration" as grace itself. Being carnal was more of a spiritual state than what you happened to be doing with your body.
Oldies, although I am no longer dispensational in my beliefs, I have to agree that the belief is not directly responsible for the immoral teachings,
Tzaia, thank you for acknowledging the point I am making. I respect your view that you no longer believe in the administrations teaching based upon its own merit or lack thereof.
Wierwille didn't just teach his brand of theology and leave it up for grabs.
He also taught how to apply it, both by virtue of formal instruction on how to misapply it to scripture and by the example he set with his perverted lifestyle, which was supposed to serve as an example to us in how to live according to this theology..
The theology and its application were intertwined and inseparable.
Thus, his theology in its comprehensive form was flawed.
The theology and its application were intertwined and inseparable.
Thus, his theology in its comprehensive form was flawed.
That's true. This is the reason why I suggested early on (to the people at STF) that people needed to distance themselves from the beliefs (theology) and try to review ALL of it independently. I realize there can be a lot of fear as people had been warned repeatedly about "rightly-dividing" and "private interpretation," and a certain amount of stiff-necked pride in having believed one is in possession of THE truth, but I pointed out then and I will continue to say that doing so is necessary.
Wierwille didn't just teach his brand of theology and leave it up for grabs.
He also taught how to apply it, both by virtue of formal instruction on how to misapply it to scripture and by the example he set with his perverted lifestyle, which was supposed to serve as an example to us in how to live according to this theology..
The theology and its application were intertwined and inseparable.
Thus, his theology in its comprehensive form was flawed.
I disagree with that premise. The application of doctrine is contingent and controlled solely upon the person making the decision to apply it, either appropriately or inappropriately. The same doctrine can be used for ill purposes and twisted, or used for honorable purposes. That is why, the behavior of the one performing the application of theology does not prove one way or the other that the theology is truth or error. If that's the case, that'd mean truth is contingent upon someone's behavior at a certain point in time. Truth is truth, behavior is behavior.
It is acceptable for a minister to engage in extramarital sex as long as said minister observes the theological premise of the Grace Administration.
The "grace administration" was not the problem as much as he believed all sin (except for the sin of believing and then not believing) was covered by grace.
The Bible talks often about "fruit," that is, the results of a person's character, beliefs and theology. The "fruit" of how people live is indeed an indication of whether their theology is true or false. Not the only indication, but a very important one. Jesus said that bad fruit comes from bad trees. Wierwille and Martindale clearly thought they were following Way teaching (the "tree") when they practiced free sex (the "fruit"). The theology and the behavior was a matched set. James 3 says that wisdom that comes from heaven is full of good fruit. TWI leadership who knew Way theology best yielded much bad fruit.
When leaders used Way theology like administrations and body/soul/spirit to promote promiscuity, it worked largely because people could see how the theology and the promiscuity fit together.
The CF&S class was 18 hours long and cites 113 Bible passages. Adjusting for overlap between them, about 52 sections of the Bible are quoted. That's a lot of verses. However, Wierwille never once mentions the 11 that most directly prohibit adultery and sex outside marriage, including:
+ 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "neither the sexually immoral... nor adulterers... will inherit the kingdom of God"
+ Galatians 5:19, "the acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality"
+ Hebrews 13:4, "marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral"
+ Ephesians 5:3, "there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality"
+ Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, " adultery, sexual immorality... these are what make a man unclean"
+ Matthew 5:32, 19:7-9, Mark 10:4, 11-12, "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery"
+ Matthew 5:27-28, "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart"
+ Exodus 20, "do not commit adultery"
The only passage Wierwille cites which mentions immorality at all is 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, which prohibits sex with prostitutes. It certainly was not just oversight that Wierwille cited 113 passages He consciously left them out.
This class was the main contact most people had with TWI's theology of sex. Clearly, Wierwille's theology left the door wide open for adultery and promiscuity without restriction.
People have enough sense to recognize what is NOT said as well as what is said.
You appear to be suggesting that CFS was an open invitation for the student to live immorally, since it did not contain passages against adultery and fornication. I disagree on two points, (1) there was no invitation or doctrine in the CFS class that taught people to live immorally, and (2) the absence of key scriptures against adultery and fornication does not promote adultery and fornication in and of itself. It has been inferred, but I think the greater cause of adultery and fornication is that people CHOOSE to live immorally because they want to, because of the sin nature, walking by the flesh; regardless of whether or not we are taught something.
I agree that the absence of those key scriptures did not help matters. But also doesn't mean that the class was false because some folks choose to live immorally.
Also, if bad fruit = bad theology, what about those folks who choose to live morally, who bore good fruit? Should we say that CFS was a magnificent success because of many who live morally? That'd mean good fruit = good theology.
CF&S was a grooming tool, a primer of sorts. Just because people sat through the class and opted for a moral lifestyle is no proof the class was valid. It's simply an indication that the class did not affect them negatively. Wierwille used the separation that Dispensationalism provides as a means to excuse his bad behavior. He rationalized that since he was living under grace and already in receipt of sonship rights, he could do whatever he pleased and it was OK. He used the separation of body, soul and spirit to rationalize abortion. In his thinking, the baby was not alive because it hadn't taken its first breath.( That's how he defined the beginning of life.) We're not trying to prove whether these beliefs (theology) are accurate or not. That is what the doctrinal forum is for. What should be apparent, though, is that he used his belief system (theology) to excuse deviant behavior in himself and other leaders. If a theology is constructed in such a manner as to promote unacceptable behavior, it's flawed. Plain and simple. In short, he used theology to get sex and never acknowledged the application of said theology was flawed. That is what sets him apart from some of the mainstream religious figures who have been publicly exposed in sex scandals. I'm confident there have been other cult leaders who have done similar things. That doesn't make it right.
and.. what about the little "question and answer" period..
"herr doktor, is it 'ok' or not to have premarital sex.."
"duh.. well, ahem.. well, they didn't have that 'problem' in bible days, so da word doesn't have anything really specifically to say about it.."
"well, it's just not BEST.."
don't you think that kinda left the barn door open?
that in itself might not be damning.. but add the vicster's and loys and countless other underlings proclivities to the equation, and I think it's kind of sinister..
Oldies.. I think the "problem" with your mantra, is one really CAN'T separate the "message" and the "messenger"..
he may have boasted of freedom in Christ, and all that.. but on the other hand, what did the "message" produce?
If it produced a life of "holiness", that's one thing.. if it produced a life of abuse, alcoholism, sexual immorality, intellectual thievery and the like, in himself and OTHERS.. maybe it's not the "message" you really think it is, or was..
Clearly, Wierwille's theology left the door wide open for adultery and promiscuity without restriction.
People have enough sense to recognize what is NOT said as well as what is said.
I never took the class, so I don't know what was and wasn't said. What I do believe is that in hindsight one can say that he left the door wide open, but I can say with a degree of assuredness that most of us did not take things that way. There was a sense that if one found themselves in a situation, such as being unwed and pregnant that one would be forgiven if one took the path of abortion, but I didn't get any sense of it being a good thing. While there was co-ed living in Way homes, it was not condoned for men and women to live together and "know" one another without being married.
Most of us at the twig level were unaware of what was going on at HQ or at the colleges. I have talked to others at the corp level and they were unaware of what was going on.
Many of us left in 1987 in response to learning about the behavior. People who stayed, stayed because they didn't believe it was happening, or perhaps because they were benefiting (that's an assumption). I know that for one family, it took someone telling them that they were being pressured into turning their teenage daughters over to HQ for them to get that people were not lying about this, and they finally left. It wasn't that they were turning a blind eye to the situation. It was because the incidences at the twig level were not pervasive enough to believe it was going on at HQ.
My first hint that it was going on was in 1980 when VPW gave me one of those leering looks and held onto my hand a bit too long. I was stunned, but I was also assured that he was just being nice. I knew better. The only other time I came into contact with the behavior was when a girl confided to me about being in a "relationship" with a guy, only to be told after she took the class that it was no longer OK because she had become a "sister in Christ." When I confronted the guy, I was told that "anything was OK if it brought someone to the word." Then he threw around his name tag and spiritual maturity. I told him he was full of crap, and if this was what he was being taught at the corp level that it was simply wrong. It got ugly. I walked away saying that I would not ever bring a person into this ministry, nor would I ever help run a class again. Once I had that behind the scenes look, I didn't want any part of it. I think a lot of people felt that way because it was hard to find people to help run classes - at least where I was - which was a mile down the road from the Limb HQ.
It is acceptable for a minister to engage in extramarital sex as long as said minister observes the theological premise of the Grace Administration.
In other words, if the theology promotes the behavior and the behavior promotes the theology, the two are inextricable from each other.
************************************************
Wierwille used his pseudo theological tenets to rationalize deviant behavior.
****************************************
" If that's the case, that'd mean truth is contingent upon someone's behavior at a certain point in time. Truth is truth, behavior is behavior"
"Truth" isn't even a part of this discussion.
If you want to debate the meaning of "Truth" I suggest you visit the doctrinal forum.
Oldies.. I think the "problem" with your mantra, is one really CAN'T separate the "message" and the "messenger"..
he may have boasted of freedom in Christ, and all that.. but on the other hand, what did the "message" produce?
If it produced a life of "holiness", that's one thing.. if it produced a life of abuse, alcoholism, sexual immorality, intellectual thievery and the like, in himself and OTHERS.. maybe it's not the "message" you really think it is, or was..
As waysider said regarding the theology and the behavior "the two are inextricable"...true enough and answers the rhetorical question by Ham...""what did the messege produce?"...It produced the only thing it could produce...sexual abuse and exploitation.
In the final analysis, Wierwille, his theology and his behavior have become unified into a single thing...an honest consideration demands this and by the standards that I believe are right, he was a sexual predator who opened the doors for wide spread sexual abuse.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
7
13
16
Popular Days
Feb 24
31
Feb 25
12
Feb 23
12
Mar 3
11
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 11 posts
Tzaia 7 posts
Ham 13 posts
waysider 16 posts
Popular Days
Feb 24 2009
31 posts
Feb 25 2009
12 posts
Feb 23 2009
12 posts
Mar 3 2009
11 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Likewise with the in-clusion of the graphic photographs that were accompanied with comments like, "Aren't her breasts just bee-u-tee-ful!" and a lengthy list of street terms for genitalia and sex acts
potato
thank you, WG. I didn't remember that as being part of PFAL, but it certainly explains some things. it was a deeply engrained part of twi culture. I wonder how Bathsheba, as Uriah's wife, reacted. no
waysider
The Biblical accuracy or inaccuracy of dispensationalism is not the issue here. That is a subject for the doctrinal forum. The simple fact is that dispensationalism is a theological system. Wierwil
JeffSjo
Arguing theology doesn't change that TWI leadership used it to get sex. It stands to reason that their theology tended to justify the abuse.
Save the doctrinal discussion for the doctrinal section.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
He is ALIVE in us via the holy spirit. "It's Christ in you, the Hope of Glory". Do you remember that teaching? I do. I'd say that qualifies as fellowship but you can believe what you want!
A lot of wayfers talk this way. I don't know how to describe it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Allow me to clarify it for you.
It's generally referred to as "changing the subject".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
So you think this is changing the subject? Did you read Dr. Juedes article in its entirety? I did. Dr. Juedes opened the door by inferring that core twi doctrine (which includes the seven administrations and body soul and spirit) is FALSE BECAUSE OF IMMORAL BEHAVIOR. That is pertinent to this thread of which the article is based.
Had he simply stated that twi doctrine was used to excuse immoral behavior, without speaking about the truth or error of the doctrine itself, I would have agreed with that opinion. BUT that is not enough, he wants to show that because of the immoral behavior, the doctrine must be wrong too. Sorry, I don't buy it.
As pointed out above, somebody can teach the doctrine and extract an exact opposite meaning, which I think means that the core doctrine (like seven administrations, body/soul/spirit) is IRRELEVANT when it comes to immoral behavior!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Just a grammatical point here, folks: an inference is something drawn from a statement. An implication is something given. In other words, Dr. Juedes might have implied something by his statement, or you might have inferred something from what he said. You give an implication; you take an inference.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Not according to scriptures....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You're putting the cart in front of the horse.
If a basic tenet of a belief system facilitates immoral behavior, it stands to reason the tenet, hence, the belief system (theology) must be flawed in some manner. Unless, of course, your belief system fails to acknowledge the behavior as being immoral, despite the societal mores of the system in which it resides.
In this instance, one of those specific flaws is the usage of dispensational theology to excuse immoral behavior and dismiss the perpetrator from accountability. Wierwille proposed that, because this is the "Grace Administration", as defined by dispensational theology, it follows that the most basic of laws, the ten commamdments, does not apply to this day and time. Based on his logic, murder or bank robbery would be acceptable as long as you are "spiritually mature" enough to justify and rationalize it.
If you disagree that the validity of dispensationalism should be questioned and discounted, that's your choice. Feel free to explore that avenue in the doctrinal forum. This discussion is not about the concept of "seven administrations" but rather, about how Wierwille applied that concept to exonerate deviant behavior. It's what the rest of the world (the secular faction) calls "rationalization".
Click HERE for an explanation of rationalization.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
As I said, Wierwille led people away from Christ and to himself. The book of Timothy sets forth the criteria for Christian ministers and Wierwille falls "WAY" short of even getting close to the standards that are set. It is quite clear from the bible that you cannot get good fruit from a bad tree...in spite of what you claim. His theology was hopelessly flawed and his behavior was deplorable...You use the word "fraudulent"...you mean as in the methods that Wierwille used when he plagiarized and claimed to hear God's voice?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Oddly enough, VP does fit the criteria set forth in the scriptures of a false teacher. He doesn't fall too short there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Oldies, although I am no longer dispensational in my beliefs, I have to agree that the belief is not directly responsible for the immoral teachings, no more than Calvin's views on grace and salvation are responsible. VPW's interpretation of those 3 beliefs are where the problems lie.
Johnj, I can't blame dispensationalism as much as VPW's take on grace and salvation. There was a sense of you can't ever earn salvation, so why try. It's not so much the "grace administration" as grace itself. Being carnal was more of a spiritual state than what you happened to be doing with your body.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Tzaia, thank you for acknowledging the point I am making. I respect your view that you no longer believe in the administrations teaching based upon its own merit or lack thereof.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wierwille didn't just teach his brand of theology and leave it up for grabs.
He also taught how to apply it, both by virtue of formal instruction on how to misapply it to scripture and by the example he set with his perverted lifestyle, which was supposed to serve as an example to us in how to live according to this theology..
The theology and its application were intertwined and inseparable.
Thus, his theology in its comprehensive form was flawed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
That's true. This is the reason why I suggested early on (to the people at STF) that people needed to distance themselves from the beliefs (theology) and try to review ALL of it independently. I realize there can be a lot of fear as people had been warned repeatedly about "rightly-dividing" and "private interpretation," and a certain amount of stiff-necked pride in having believed one is in possession of THE truth, but I pointed out then and I will continue to say that doing so is necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I disagree with that premise. The application of doctrine is contingent and controlled solely upon the person making the decision to apply it, either appropriately or inappropriately. The same doctrine can be used for ill purposes and twisted, or used for honorable purposes. That is why, the behavior of the one performing the application of theology does not prove one way or the other that the theology is truth or error. If that's the case, that'd mean truth is contingent upon someone's behavior at a certain point in time. Truth is truth, behavior is behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wierwille Theology
It is acceptable for a minister to engage in extramarital sex as long as said minister observes the theological premise of the Grace Administration.
In other words, if the theology promotes the behavior and the behavior promotes the theology, the two are inextricable from each other.
************************************************
Wierwille used his pseudo theological tenets to rationalize deviant behavior.
****************************************
" If that's the case, that'd mean truth is contingent upon someone's behavior at a certain point in time. Truth is truth, behavior is behavior"
"Truth" isn't even a part of this discussion.
If you want to debate the meaning of "Truth" I suggest you visit the doctrinal forum.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
The "grace administration" was not the problem as much as he believed all sin (except for the sin of believing and then not believing) was covered by grace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think we're kinda saying the same thing, Taz.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
The Bible talks often about "fruit," that is, the results of a person's character, beliefs and theology. The "fruit" of how people live is indeed an indication of whether their theology is true or false. Not the only indication, but a very important one. Jesus said that bad fruit comes from bad trees. Wierwille and Martindale clearly thought they were following Way teaching (the "tree") when they practiced free sex (the "fruit"). The theology and the behavior was a matched set. James 3 says that wisdom that comes from heaven is full of good fruit. TWI leadership who knew Way theology best yielded much bad fruit.
When leaders used Way theology like administrations and body/soul/spirit to promote promiscuity, it worked largely because people could see how the theology and the promiscuity fit together.
The CF&S class was 18 hours long and cites 113 Bible passages. Adjusting for overlap between them, about 52 sections of the Bible are quoted. That's a lot of verses. However, Wierwille never once mentions the 11 that most directly prohibit adultery and sex outside marriage, including:
+ 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "neither the sexually immoral... nor adulterers... will inherit the kingdom of God"
+ Galatians 5:19, "the acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality"
+ Hebrews 13:4, "marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral"
+ Ephesians 5:3, "there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality"
+ Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, " adultery, sexual immorality... these are what make a man unclean"
+ Matthew 5:32, 19:7-9, Mark 10:4, 11-12, "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery"
+ Matthew 5:27-28, "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart"
+ Exodus 20, "do not commit adultery"
The only passage Wierwille cites which mentions immorality at all is 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, which prohibits sex with prostitutes. It certainly was not just oversight that Wierwille cited 113 passages He consciously left them out.
This class was the main contact most people had with TWI's theology of sex. Clearly, Wierwille's theology left the door wide open for adultery and promiscuity without restriction.
People have enough sense to recognize what is NOT said as well as what is said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
You appear to be suggesting that CFS was an open invitation for the student to live immorally, since it did not contain passages against adultery and fornication. I disagree on two points, (1) there was no invitation or doctrine in the CFS class that taught people to live immorally, and (2) the absence of key scriptures against adultery and fornication does not promote adultery and fornication in and of itself. It has been inferred, but I think the greater cause of adultery and fornication is that people CHOOSE to live immorally because they want to, because of the sin nature, walking by the flesh; regardless of whether or not we are taught something.
I agree that the absence of those key scriptures did not help matters. But also doesn't mean that the class was false because some folks choose to live immorally.
Also, if bad fruit = bad theology, what about those folks who choose to live morally, who bore good fruit? Should we say that CFS was a magnificent success because of many who live morally? That'd mean good fruit = good theology.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oldies
CF&S was a grooming tool, a primer of sorts. Just because people sat through the class and opted for a moral lifestyle is no proof the class was valid. It's simply an indication that the class did not affect them negatively. Wierwille used the separation that Dispensationalism provides as a means to excuse his bad behavior. He rationalized that since he was living under grace and already in receipt of sonship rights, he could do whatever he pleased and it was OK. He used the separation of body, soul and spirit to rationalize abortion. In his thinking, the baby was not alive because it hadn't taken its first breath.( That's how he defined the beginning of life.) We're not trying to prove whether these beliefs (theology) are accurate or not. That is what the doctrinal forum is for. What should be apparent, though, is that he used his belief system (theology) to excuse deviant behavior in himself and other leaders. If a theology is constructed in such a manner as to promote unacceptable behavior, it's flawed. Plain and simple. In short, he used theology to get sex and never acknowledged the application of said theology was flawed. That is what sets him apart from some of the mainstream religious figures who have been publicly exposed in sex scandals. I'm confident there have been other cult leaders who have done similar things. That doesn't make it right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and.. what about the little "question and answer" period..
"herr doktor, is it 'ok' or not to have premarital sex.."
"duh.. well, ahem.. well, they didn't have that 'problem' in bible days, so da word doesn't have anything really specifically to say about it.."
"well, it's just not BEST.."
don't you think that kinda left the barn door open?
that in itself might not be damning.. but add the vicster's and loys and countless other underlings proclivities to the equation, and I think it's kind of sinister..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Oldies.. I think the "problem" with your mantra, is one really CAN'T separate the "message" and the "messenger"..
he may have boasted of freedom in Christ, and all that.. but on the other hand, what did the "message" produce?
If it produced a life of "holiness", that's one thing.. if it produced a life of abuse, alcoholism, sexual immorality, intellectual thievery and the like, in himself and OTHERS.. maybe it's not the "message" you really think it is, or was..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I never took the class, so I don't know what was and wasn't said. What I do believe is that in hindsight one can say that he left the door wide open, but I can say with a degree of assuredness that most of us did not take things that way. There was a sense that if one found themselves in a situation, such as being unwed and pregnant that one would be forgiven if one took the path of abortion, but I didn't get any sense of it being a good thing. While there was co-ed living in Way homes, it was not condoned for men and women to live together and "know" one another without being married.
Most of us at the twig level were unaware of what was going on at HQ or at the colleges. I have talked to others at the corp level and they were unaware of what was going on.
Many of us left in 1987 in response to learning about the behavior. People who stayed, stayed because they didn't believe it was happening, or perhaps because they were benefiting (that's an assumption). I know that for one family, it took someone telling them that they were being pressured into turning their teenage daughters over to HQ for them to get that people were not lying about this, and they finally left. It wasn't that they were turning a blind eye to the situation. It was because the incidences at the twig level were not pervasive enough to believe it was going on at HQ.
My first hint that it was going on was in 1980 when VPW gave me one of those leering looks and held onto my hand a bit too long. I was stunned, but I was also assured that he was just being nice. I knew better. The only other time I came into contact with the behavior was when a girl confided to me about being in a "relationship" with a guy, only to be told after she took the class that it was no longer OK because she had become a "sister in Christ." When I confronted the guy, I was told that "anything was OK if it brought someone to the word." Then he threw around his name tag and spiritual maturity. I told him he was full of crap, and if this was what he was being taught at the corp level that it was simply wrong. It got ugly. I walked away saying that I would not ever bring a person into this ministry, nor would I ever help run a class again. Once I had that behind the scenes look, I didn't want any part of it. I think a lot of people felt that way because it was hard to find people to help run classes - at least where I was - which was a mile down the road from the Limb HQ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
As waysider said regarding the theology and the behavior "the two are inextricable"...true enough and answers the rhetorical question by Ham...""what did the messege produce?"...It produced the only thing it could produce...sexual abuse and exploitation.
In the final analysis, Wierwille, his theology and his behavior have become unified into a single thing...an honest consideration demands this and by the standards that I believe are right, he was a sexual predator who opened the doors for wide spread sexual abuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.